On a typically warm and sunny Saturday last week in Venice, California, Kristie Mitchell sat outside at a table surrounded by Sharpies and a pile of posters. Each one featured the same basic illustration – an outline of an African-American woman and three school-age children with the words “I Stand For” across the top. It was up to Mitchell and the other public school parents and children around the table to decorate the poster with whatever color or flourishes they preferred, but also to include what they believe their school needs the most.

Mitchell had already created two posters – one declared “I Stand For School Nurses Five Days a Week,” the second, “I Stand for Smaller Classes” – and was busy working on a third.

“We need to give teachers a stronger voice,” Mitchell said. “They don’t have the resources to teach our kids. Everybody in the community should help give them more power. When we get together like we are today, that’s what we are doing.”

Mitchell was just one of the many parents who joined hundreds of educators, students, artists, activists and who converged on a three-day community Art Build hosted by United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) to create protest art supporting public education. The event was held at the Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC), a popular community arts center housed in an old art deco building that until the mid-1970s was the Venice Police Station.

A few feet in front of Mitchell at a longer table, a row of educators, parents and students were dipping into tins of black and orange paint to decorate a large banner adorned with the proclamation “Fight For the Schools LA Students Deserve.”

A little further away, a few students had begun applying the first layers of color to four 24-foot parachute banners that cloaked the outdoor parking lot. At the studio inside, artists were churning out silk screen picket signs with messages denouncing school privatization and corporate greed and championing smaller class sizes and solidarity with educators.

Parents, teachers and students at UTLA’s community Art Build for public education.

“Anyone here is reminded of how much kids love art,” said teacher Julie Van Winkle, “and why we need it in our schools.”

By the time the event wrapped up on Sunday night, participants had produced 8 parachute banners, 1,600 picket signs, 1000 posters, and 30 banners. Every last piece will be carried at a the March for Public Education in downtown Los Angeles on December 15, and a possible UTLA strike in January.

Events like Art Build, said UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl, are a demonstration of the power of art in social movements and how passionate the people are about public schools “and the fight we are in.”

Gunderson believes Art Builds, regardless of the location, inspire educators and communities and open up new paths for advocacy and union organizing.

“It’s the creativity, the collaboration, the inherent power of art, and the democratization of images and messages,” says Gunderson.

Joe Brusky, a fourth grade teacher in Milwaukee and member of the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association, was instrumental in organizing that city’s Art Build and was onhand in Los Angeles documenting UTLA’s event on social media. He recalls how Art Build became “entry point” into the union for many educators.

“The event energized them,” Brusky says. “Afterwards, people were getting involved for the first time. I remember seeing them at Art Build and then suddenly they were at school board meetings.”

Where there is grassroots support for public eduction, there is potential for an Art Build. The Oakland Education Association (OEA) will be hosting its own event on January 18-20. OEA President Keith Brown visited UTLA’s Art Build to lend his support and preview some of the logistics.

The Social and Public Art Resource Center was an ideal partner. SPARC not only provides studios for silk screen and digital printing and the necessary outdoor space to unfurl 24-foot parachute banners, but offers invaluable guidance to organizations looking to create public art for social change.

Last November, Gunderson put out a call for educators, artists and activists to submit images and slogans promoting public education. The Art Build Committee reviewed the submissions and selected those that would go on to form the basis of the posters, banners, picket signs and parachute banners that were delivered to SPARC in December.

Gloria Martinez, UTLA Elementary Vice President, was struck not only by the creativity of students and parents in bringing these objects to life, but by the conversations they were having.

“You ask students what they wanted for their schools, and they came up with these long lists,” Martinez recalled. “Smaller class sizes, more art, or just more money for schools in general. And their parents are listening to them. It’s great to hear them and their children talk about our issues and then use those discussions creatively.”

For elementary school teacher Maria Miranda, it was important that everyone understood that the chronic underfunding of schools wasn’t isolated in one particular area.

“Projects like this, when we come together with the community, show that our challenges are the same. In my school, we don’t have nurses every day or librarians. But it’s not just in my neighborhood. This is a problem for schools across the city,” Miranda explained.

“Yes, it takes our activism and our visibility to the next level. But you know what? This is a also stress-reliever for our members. They need this. It’s fun and will build resiliency. It’s been a difficult time and we may have a lot more work to do in January.”

“We All Want the Same Thing”

Myart-Cruz is referring to a possible strike early in 2019. In August, UTLA’s 33,000 members voted overwhelmingly (98%!) to authorize such an action if an agreement between teachers and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) cannot be reached.

After two years of negotiations, educators are refusing to retreat from their demand that LAUSD end an era of austerity and privatization that has starved public education across the city.

The situation was exacerbated in May when the Los Angeles school board selected Austin Beutner as district superintendent. Beutner is the quintessential corporate “reformer”: a billionaire investment banker with zero experience in school or district leadership and a tireless appetite for school privatization. He has dismissed calls to slow down the expansion of charter schools (which currently cost the district more than $600 million annually) and refuses to tap into the district’s $1.6 billion reserves to properly fund the city’s schools.

“We are in a battle between Austin Beutner’s vision to downsize the public school district and our vision to reinvest in the public school district,” UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl wrote to the membership in November.

This art build is more than a craft session—it is all of us joining together to create beautiful protest art that celebrates our love of public schools and our commitment to fighting together for a better day for our students. #StrikeReady#March4Edpic.twitter.com/5FsMbxk0hV

Unless UTLA stays strong, he warned, Beutner will be back for “another pound pound of flesh every year in a downsizing plan that includes layoffs, school closures, cuts to services, and healthcare cuts.”

From the start, the successful forging of partnerships – a tenet of “bargaining for the common good – has strengthened UTLA’s resolve and its position. The bond between parents, their children and educators at Art Build is striking, said Julie Van Winkle.

“We’re all on the same side. We want the same thing. We don’t want our schools to be starved out skeletons, we want them to be vibrant hubs of learning for our kids,” Van Winkle said as she motioned to a group of students hard at work on a banner that read “Give Our Kids a Chance.”

By Sunday night, that banner would be complete, ready to be added to the abundant stockpile of strike ready art. Next stop: downtown Los Angeles for the March for Public Education.

If a massive rally of educators, students, parents and community members doesn’t push the district into an agreement with UTLA, then there will be a strike, but “it will then be a strike of the city, not just of a strike of teachers,” said Caputo-Pearl,

“And if we’re on the picket lines in January, then this art will again be right there with us.”

Posters and Banners from UTLA Art Build

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/12/14/art-build-for-organizing/feed/044532‘Education is Political’: Neutrality in the Classroom Shortchanges Studentshttp://neatoday.org/2018/12/11/political-neutrality-in-the-classroom-shortchanges-students/
http://neatoday.org/2018/12/11/political-neutrality-in-the-classroom-shortchanges-students/#respondTue, 11 Dec 2018 22:37:08 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=44488When teaching about U.S. elections or politics many educators will strive for neutrality. They may insist these discussions have no place in the classroom, while others argue that standardization and a lack of time make them a non-starter. Even if there was an opening, the slightest hint of bias could attract the ire of an administrator or parent. In this hyper-polarized political climate, that’s a line that’s easy to stumble across.

All this neutrality or avoidance may work for the teacher – but what about the student?

Alyssa Hadley Dunn, Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at Michigan State University, believes that a strict adherence to “neutrality” – not expressing your views to students and/or avoiding political topics – is a tactic that can actually marginalize many students.

Neutrality is itself a political choice, Dunn argues, and is one that bolsters the status quo. What results is a classroom that potentially ignores the fears, interests, and concerns of many students.

To be clear, Dunn is not talking about a teacher who stands in front of the class and reads aloud endorsements for local, state and federal political office and then urges students to go home and tell their parents to vote accordingly.

The kind of neutrality that concerns Dunn is, for example, a decision to avoid discussion of “controversial” issues – racism, inequity, climate change, or gun violence, for example – out of fear of appearing political or partisan.

Education, at it’s core, is inherently political, says Dunn.

“Everything in education—from the textbooks to the curriculum to the policies that govern teachers’ work and students’ learning—is political and ideologically-informed,” she explains. “Both what is taught and how it is taught is shaped by the cultural, social, political, and historical contexts in which a school is situated. We can’t pretend that teachers can leave these contexts at the door.”

Especially after as the election of Donald Trump.

Although political polarization didn’t begin with his candidacy, Trump’s incendiary, crude, and divisive rhetoric about race, religion, gender, and immigration that marked his campaign (and his presidency) has been deeply unsettling to many, if not most, Americans.

“I don’t care what my school administration says. My loyalty is to my students and their lives, . . . not to administrator requests to avoid conversations that are uncomfortable.’’

According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the 2016 presidential campaign had a “profoundly negative effect on children and classrooms…particularly acute in schools with high concentrations of minority children.”

Yet, as Dunn and her colleagues Beth Sondel of the University of Pittsburgh and Hannah Carson Baggett of Auburn University concluded in a recent paper, many teachers continue to feel pressured to remain neutral when discussing Trump and are generally uncomfortable addressing racial and social justice issues in the classroom.

“This pressure (to stay neutral) is reflective of the lack of trust, autonomy and professionalism for teachers in our current climate,” the study, published in the American Educational Research Journal, concludes.

The researchers surveyed 730 teachers from 43 states to gauge how their pedagogical choices were affected after the election.

Some respondents made it very clear they did not adhere to what they saw as misdirected directives from school or district officials to stay away from anything Trump-related.

One middle school teacher explained that despite the fear many of his students had of deportation and harassment, “my school, tied by a never-ending desire to remain ‘unbiased,’ did nothing and told teachers to limit conversations about the elections because such conversations were not included [in the standards].”

“I don’t care what my school administration says,” the teacher continued. “My loyalty is to my students and their lives, . . . not to administrator requests to avoid conversations that are uncomfortable.’’

Generally, however, responses from educators were littered with words such as “fearful,” “anxious,” “unsure,” and “scared,” even as they acknowledged that a more engaged, proactive approach in the classroom may be necessary.

One educator from Massachusetts summed up the dilemma this way:

“Trump unlike any other presidential candidate stands for everything I work to combat: racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. My students fall into categories of people he wants removed or controlled, in his America. I do not know how to talk to my students about this and be neutral (as per country policy).”

According to the study, teaching after the election was most challenging for those who were “ideological outsiders” – Clinton voters in areas where the majority of voters were pro-Trump and vice versa.

“Teachers had to negotiate if and how to talk about their own beliefs knowing that their students’ parents and/or colleagues may disagree with them,” Dunn says.

For example, an elementary teacher from a predominantly White school in Michigan explained,

“I always feel nervous explicitly discussing politics in my classroom due to the variety of views of my students’ parents and my own fear that parents will be upset or complain about me if my own view come up explicitly in classroom lessons/discussions. I know I have students whose parents supported both candidates passionately and I do sort of feel a responsibility to respect their parents’ views (no matter how much I may disagree)”.

It doesn’t help that so much of our discourse is labelled “political” or “partisan,” including discussions about human rights and social justice. Pedagogical choices, the researchers argue, should not be confined by this false construct.

“Making justice-oriented pedagogical choices is not about partisanship or controversy but, rather, is reflective of an overarching commitment to equity,” they write.

Both what is taught and how it is taught is shaped by the cultural, social, political, and historical contexts in which a school is situated. We can’t pretend that teachers can leave these contexts at the door.” – Alyssa Hadley Dunn, Michigan State University

Anchoring discussions to a justice and equity framework can provide educators with a path forward. Still, many of the respondents in the survey did not feel particularly well-prepared to take this on, let alone publicly challenge the presumed virtues of a neutral classroom. The study concludes that teacher training programs need to better prepare educators in adapting their classrooms to help students understand current events and political upheavals. The researchers recommend that current teachers, especially those “ideological outsiders,” seek out networks across schools and districts that can serve as “restorative and supportive communities.”

While Dunn and her colleagues are careful not to downplay the pressures educators face, they emphasize that, ultimately, teachers are charged with preparing their students to work toward a more democratic society.

With 2019 and 2020 shaping up to be just as tumultuous as the previous few years, what are the chances more educators will feel empowered and better prepared to talk politics (for lack of a better word) in their classrooms?

Don’t count on the administration to lead the way, at least not yet. “Districts are still issuing bureaucratic demands on teachers that take their time away from the most important thing they can do in the classroom: create responsive and relevant curriculum for their students,” explains Dunn.

And while too many parents still believe the classroom door should always be shut to any political discussion, they may be “ignoring the reality that such a move is never really possible,” Dunn says.

NEA EdJustice engages and mobilizes activists in the fight for racial, social and economic justice in public education.

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/12/11/political-neutrality-in-the-classroom-shortchanges-students/feed/044488Where Do Teachers Get the Most Respect?http://neatoday.org/2018/11/28/where-do-teachers-get-the-most-respect/
http://neatoday.org/2018/11/28/where-do-teachers-get-the-most-respect/#respondThu, 29 Nov 2018 00:03:37 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=44459How educators are respected in relation to other professions can be a key marker in determining their overall status in an individual country. In China and Malaysia, the teaching profession is often placed on par with doctors. In Finland, the public aligns teaching with social work. Other countries rank teaching alongside librarians. These are just some of the findings in the 2018 Global Teacher Status Index, a worldwide survey of the general public and educators in 35 countries on the status of the teaching profession around the world.

How teachers were viewed relative to other occupations is one of four indicators the index uses to measure overall respect for the profession. The survey also looked at what teachers should be paid and whether parents encourage their children to enter the profession.

The researchers said 2018 data show a clear positive relationship between teacher status/respect and student achievement as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores.

China and Malaysia have the highest score in the 2018 index, 100 and 93 respectively. Taiwan – the only other country that places teachers on the same level as doctors – is third. Russia and Indonesia round out the top five. At the bottom of the rankings are Argentina (23.6), Ghana (18.9), Italy (13.6), Israel (6.6) and Brazil (1).

Most countries surveyed recorded an increase in teacher respect for 2018 over the previous year, including the United States. The U.S. score was 39, which placed it 16th overall.

Doctor was the highest status profession in the survey. Other occupations included nurse, librarian; local government manager; social worker; website designer; policeman; engineer; lawyer; accountant; and, management consultant.

(Source: Global Teacher Status Index 2018)

Most countries placed teaching on the same level as a social worker. The U.S. equated the role of teachers to that of librarians, although the educators in the survey chose local government manager.

The survey asked respondents to estimate the starting salary for a teacher in their country, then give a figure that they thought was fair. They were then told how much teachers in their country were actually paid and asked if they thought this was fair.

“In the majority of countries, actual teacher wages were lower than what was perceived to be fair by respondents,” the report says.

We find that there are major differences across countries in the way teachers are perceived by the public. This informs who decides to become a teacher in each country, how they are respected and how they are financially rewarded. This affects the kind of job they do in teaching our children, and ultimately how effective they are in getting the best from their pupils in terms of their learning.” – Global Teacher Status Index 2018

The survey also found a clear correlation between the level of respect for teachers and the likelihood that parents encourage their child to enter the profession. This holds even when controlling for pay levels, suggesting that teacher salary has little impact on a parent’s decision to encourage teaching.

In most countries, the public “systematically underestimates how much teachers work per week – often by more than 10 hours a week,” according to the report.

Despite the lackluster overall score of the United States, it’s evident from much of the data in the U.S. survey that respect for teachers – indeed, for the entire public education – is on the upswing.

Here are some of the highlights:

-The U.S. public think that teachers are underpaid by $7,500.

– Seventy-eight percent of respondents “instinctively view” teachers as influential, the fourth highest of all the countries surveyed after China, Ghana, and Indonesia.

– Americans’ confidence in their education system is increasing. When asked to rate the quality of their education system out of 10, US respondents said 6.7, a significant increase from 2013 when they rated it 5.9. This places the U.S. 11th of all the countries polled in 2018.

– Over four in 10 Americans would encourage their child to become a teacher, the fifth highest of all countries surveyed. In 2013, only a third of US respondents would encourage their child to join the profession.

– The U.S. public underestimates the number of hours teachers work, putting the figure at 45.02 hours – almost an entire school day less. Overall, U.S. teachers report they are working significantly longer hours than their colleagues in other countries.

– Teachers in the United States think the status of their profession is lower than the general public does. Teachers who were polled set their status level at 37.1 out of 100, while the general public put it at 48.7 out of 100.

-Support for merit pay has dropped dramatically. Half of U.S. respondents believe teachers should be paid according to the results of their pupils. That’s down from 80 percent in 2013.

Reversing the chronic neglect of the nation’s school system and the damage “blaming teachers first” has had on the profession may take a few years, but “the public is on our side,” says NEA President Lily Eskelsen García.

Image: Elena/Adobe Stock

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/11/28/where-do-teachers-get-the-most-respect/feed/044459“We Changed the Conversation”: How Public Education Shaped Election 2018http://neatoday.org/2018/11/11/how-education-shaped-election-2018/
http://neatoday.org/2018/11/11/how-education-shaped-election-2018/#respondSun, 11 Nov 2018 17:05:45 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=44396Votes are still being counted in many states, but the final tally is not going to change the bottom line: Big change is on its way to Washington D.C. and state capitals across the nation. Come January 2019, newly-minted lawmakers will have to get down to the job of governing and delivering on the promises they ran on.

This includes the many candidates, particularly at the state level, who made public education a centerpiece of their campaign. In 2019, education was a top tier issue, second perhaps only to health care. Did it really drive voters to the polls last Tuesday? What role did the #RedforEd movement play? How will education policy in individual states actually change?

The level of political engagement among educators, Eskelsen García said, was extraordinary.

“[NEA] has never see anything like it. We saw an 165% increase in folks who said they would do something more than vote. They saw this as a pivotal election.”

Eskelsen García credited the #RedforEd movement, not only for fueling educator activism across the country, but also for fundamentally changing the conversation about public schools.

The teacher-bashing rhetoric of the past was nowhere to be heard. Instead, both Democratic and Republican candidates, said Eskelsen García said, were “talking about how we can do better for our public schools. That is a direct result of the public outpouring of support for those teachers in the #RedforEd wave.”

Scott Pattison was also struck by the dominance of the education issue – along with health care and jobs – in stump speeches and campaign ads.

“Twenty years ago, every gubernatorial candidate wanted to be known as the ‘education governor.’ Then everyone was the ‘jobs governor.’ Now those two have been put together,” Pattison explained. “There’s a broader expansion in how they see education effecting these other issues, including the opioid crisis.”

Why is it always the first order of business to dish out massive tax breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals? …We have to talk about funding. We have to talk about what every student in this country deserves.”- NEA President Lily Eskelsen García

While Frederick Hess agreed that the 2018 election results were good for public education in that candidates were “saying nice things about schools,” he was less sure of education as a critical factor in any race. Hess questioned whether public education actually motivated many people to vote and called the success rate for educator candidates and pro-public education ballot initiatives underwhelming.

“I’m just skeptical of the political saliency of the education issue,” Hess said.

As Pattison pointed out, however, no candidate in 2018 wanted to be seen as being hostile to public schools.

“In this environment, no one wanted to face the voters as someone who wanted to cut education,” Pattison said. “There was at least a strong desire [among incumbents] to be able to point to their record and say ‘I increased spending on education.'”

While it is true that many educators who ran for political office were defeated, the importance of getting into the race and talking about the future of public education cannot be overstated.

“Even in deep Republican areas, we heard candidates tell us ‘We’re making them talk about education!'” Eskelsen García said. “We changed the conversation. When a teacher knocked on a door and said ‘here is who I am supporting,’ it was more likely they were going to be listened to.”

Eskelsen García also argued that the debate over the future of public education has reached far beyond educators and policy wonks. In addition to the attention over the plight of underfunded schools, the appointment of Betsy DeVos – and the intense opposition it triggered – signaled education’s standing as an urgent national issue.

“Betsy DeVos touched a nerve. We asked our members to write to their congressman to oppose her. We were hoping for around 100,000 emails through our web site, but we got over a million. They weren’t all NEA members. This caught the attention of the general public,” Eskelsen García said.

NEA President Lily Eskelsen García, Scott Pattison of the National Governors Association (left) and Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute discuss Election 2018 and public education at the National Press Club on November 9.

Burnette asked the panelists about the challenges governors will face next year in finding the revenue to increase education funding.

Pattison replied that governors and legislatures are limited in what they can do because an anti-tax climate still exists, even in those states that elected new leaders. “There’s not a lot of flexibility on the revenue side. It comes down to the decision-making process, but there are a limited parameters and all kinds of competing priorities. And the economy may face a downturn in the next few years.”

Eskelsen García said the nation needs to take a hard look at those “priorities.”

“Why is it always the first order of business to dish out massive tax breaks to corporations and wealthy individuals? It’s always called an “economic development program” but study after study shows that the promised job creation and new revenues never materialize,” Eskelsen García said. “We have to talk about funding. We have to talk about what every student in this country deserves.”

To be successful, however, the conversation also has to shift its focus away from “school choice” schemes that siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars from public schools. On Tuesday, voters in Arizona rejected Proposition 305, which would have significantly expanded the state’s school voucher program. Voucher proponents worked overtime to sell the proposition to the voters, but “we made sure they knew exactly what they were voting for,” Eskelsen García said. “Democrats and Republicans agreed with us.”

“We need to stop taking about these distractions,” she added. “The bottom line is this: if you have a poor neighborhood school that doesn’t have the funds or resources that those state-of-the-art, top-tier schools in your state have, then there’s something wrong with the way you fund your schools. That’s what we’re going to take on.”

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/11/11/how-education-shaped-election-2018/feed/044396What Do Public Schools Need? More Money and Strong Unions, Say Millennialshttp://neatoday.org/2018/11/09/millennials-support-more-education-funding/
http://neatoday.org/2018/11/09/millennials-support-more-education-funding/#respondFri, 09 Nov 2018 14:53:18 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=44390Approximately 31% of Americans under the age of 30 turned out to vote in the 2018 midterm election on November 6, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University. That by itself may not sound like a particularly impressive number (general voter turnout was around 49%), but it represents a huge increase over 2014 and the the highest participation since CIRCLE began analyzing the youth vote in midterm elections 25 years ago.

“[Youth voters] will play a significant role in shaping our country’s future through their commitment to service and renewed interest in politics,” John Della Volpe of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University said in response to the numbers.

If their level of political engagement continues to increase, Millennial voters could be delivering good news for public education in the years to come. A recent survey by the GenForward Project at the University of Chicago finds that Millennials (loosely defined as adults aged 18-34) overwhelmingly believe that increased school funding is “the most important way to improve public education in their local school district.”

Investing more money in public education is the foundation of the #RedforEd movement that caught fire across the country in 2018. Many Millennial educators were leaders in the massive walkouts that called attention to cash-starved schools and the plight of teachers and other staff in their districts.

Founded by Dr. Cathy Cohen, Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago, the GenForward Project draws on a nationally-representative survey of 1750 young adults to analyze their attitudes on a number of important issues.

According to “Millennials and Public Education in the United States,” over 75% of respondents believe paying teachers more would do more to improve public schools than, for example, creating more charter schools.

And an overwhelming majority also believe that strong teacher’s unions mean a strong public education system.

(Source: GenForward Project, “Millennials and Public Education in the United States”)

Surprising? Not really, says Cohen. “Millennials are looking for and willing to support most initiatives they deem reasonable that are framed as improving public education,” she explains.

(Source: GenForward Project, “Millennials and Public Education in the United States”)

At the same time, this expressed support should be put in context, Cohen adds. While millennials may see vouchers as one policy option, they do not prioritize them as one of the most effective ways to improve public schools.

Furthermore, support drops among respondents if the program is not exclusively targeted toward low-income families. In some states where voucher programs exist – namely Indiana – they have been expanded to include more middle-class and affluent families.

“Only about 5% of people of color and 9% of whites in our survey picked increasing school choice through vouchers and charter schools as their first policy option,” Cohen says. “Again, while young adults generally support a number of different policies they believe will improve education, increasing funding for public schools is their preferred policy option across race and ethnicity.” (When given the choice between vouchers and more school funding, 71% of respondents opted for the latter.)

Disaggregating data along racial and ethnic groups is a feature of GenForward’s surveys. Given that differences usually surface in responses, the uniformity in the results in this survey is striking, says Cohen.

“We usually uncover powerful differences tied to identities such as race and ethnicity. There are relatively few policy domains, such as education, where you find the consistency in policy positions among millennials across race and ethnic groups,” she explains. “This level of agreement is unique and suggests strong and stable opinions on the issue of how to improve public education in the country.”

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/11/09/millennials-support-more-education-funding/feed/044390Election 2018: Voters Deliver Big Wins for Public Educationhttp://neatoday.org/2018/11/07/election-2018-voters-deliver-big-wins-for-public-education/
http://neatoday.org/2018/11/07/election-2018-voters-deliver-big-wins-for-public-education/#respondWed, 07 Nov 2018 17:51:08 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=44354Last Spring, educators in state after state took to the streets to demand greater investments in public schools. The protests launched the #RedforEd movement to elevate public education as a top national issue and harness the energy of educators everywhere and carry it to the ballot box in November.

On Tuesday, they delivered in spectacular fashion, helping sweep pro-education candidates – many of them former or current educators – into office at every level of government.

The victories marked a major victory for students and education and serve as a mandate for real change in our public education system.

The 2018 election may prove to be a turning point for public education, said NEA President Lily Eskelsen García.

“Lawmakers learned an important lesson tonight: You can either work with educators to address the needs of students and public education, or they will work to elect someone who will,” said Eskelsen García. “Candidates across the country witnessed unprecedented activism by educators in their races. Standing up for students and supporting public education were deciding factors for voters, and educators will hold lawmakers to their promises.”

The balance of power will shift in Washington D.C. as the Democrats’ new majority in the U.S. House of Representatives will serve as an important check on President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. More than 100 women were elected to the House, the most in U.S. history.

It was the gubernatorial and state legislature contests, however, that delivered the most impressive wins for pro-public education candidates. Education policy is decided primarily by these legislatures and the bulk of money allocated to public schools comes from state and local coffers. Winning these races was critical, which is why NEA focused its mobilization efforts most sharply in individual states.

At least 290 state legislative seats and seven state chambers were flipped to pro-public education majorities, many in states that have suffered through a decade of devastating cuts to education and relentless attacks on educators and other public sector workers. Beyond that, at least seven governorships were flipped, including Tony Evers, who put an end to the Scott Walker era in Wisconsin and J.B. Pritzker defeated Bruce Rauner in Illinois.

Other big wins included former high school teacher Tim Walz in Minnesota, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, Janet Mills in Maine, Brad Little in Idaho, Laura Kelly in Kansas, and Michelle Lujan-Grisham in New Mexico.

Nearly 220,000 NEA members and education families were involved in getting out the vote up and down the ballot in the 2018 election. That’s a 165 percent increase in activism engagement this election cycle compared with 2016, a presidential year where activism is historically higher than midterms.

There were a number of state ballot initiatives put before the voters that effected education funding. Maryland voters approved Question 1, whichwill require casino revenue to be set aside for schools, potentially raising $500 million annually for K-12 education. Montana voters approved LR-128, a $6 million levy to support the state’s public colleges and universities.

The 2018 elections also saw an unprecedented number of educators step up and run for office. According to an NEA analysis, nearly 1,800 current or former teachers and other education professionals ran for state legislative seats this year and more than 100 more vied for top state or federal offices. Many of these candidates hailed from states that experienced #RedForEd walkouts: West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado, and North Carolina. Oklahoma led the charge with more than 62 educators who were on the general election ballot.

While results were still being tallied on Wednesday, the message sent by these candidates is loud and clear.

“After decades of starving education funding, educators said, ‘I can do better,’” said Eskelsen García. “They found themselves asking, ‘Why not have an educator in that lawmaking decision seat?’ And that’s exactly why they ran for office and voters elected them to serve,” said Eskelsen García.

Despite the victories in Election 2018, Eskelsen García added, educators will continue to engage with our elected officials so they stay focused on delivering for the nation’s students.

“Educators have had enough of empty promises from politicians. We told them we’d remember in November, and educators keep their promises,” Eskelsen García said. “As a result of the historic #RedForEd movement and the 2018 midterm election, educators have found their voice, and they are going to continue to hold lawmakers accountable after this election.”

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/11/07/election-2018-voters-deliver-big-wins-for-public-education/feed/044354How Bad Do For-Profit, Virtual Charter Schools Have to Get?http://neatoday.org/2018/10/26/scrutiny-over-virtual-charter-schools/
http://neatoday.org/2018/10/26/scrutiny-over-virtual-charter-schools/#respondFri, 26 Oct 2018 14:21:46 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=44210On January 18, 2018, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT), Ohio’s largest K-12 virtual school, abruptly closed its doors for good. The move, which left its 12,000 students scrambling for another option halfway through the academic year, came amidst escalating scandals over the for-profit cyber charter’s operations. ECOT had been inflating its attendance records to siphon off more state funds. At the time of ECOT’s demise, the Ohio Department of Education was trying to recoup $80 million in improper payments based on years of deceptive enrollment reports. Its academic record was also abysmal. More than one-third of Ohio’s dropouts were ECOT students, and the school consistently ranked near the bottom on state assessments.

ECOT’s spectacular failure became a central issue in the 2018 campaign for Ohio attorney general and governor. The voters rightfully want to know: How could hundreds of millions of state funds be squandered on a school fraught with fraud, mismanagement, and a shoddy academic record?

Welcome to the world of for-profit, virtual charter schools.

ECOT was the indisputable poster child for Ohio’s struggling, unaccountable charter sector, says Becky Higgins, president of the Ohio Education Association (OEA). Over the years, OEA relentlessly pushed state lawmakers to scrutinize ECOT’s operations and adopt stronger accountability measures to protect students and taxpayer funds.

It would be a mistake, however, to look at ECOT as one “bad actor.” Six months after ECOT closed, the Virtual Community School of Ohio also collapsed after being told to repay $4 million in state funds.

“Not only are the students being badly served, but the taxpayers are being fleeced. And at a time of declining state revenues, it’s all the more important that tax dollars are well spent,” said Higgins.

In 2017, the National Education Association’s Charter School Taskforce recommended that because of the “combination of inherent limitations they pose to the healthy social and emotional development of students, along with their particularly dismal student outcomes, full-time virtual charter schools should not be authorized.”

In January 2018, ECOT, the largest virtual K-12 school in Ohio, closed its doors after failing to repay $80 million in state funds.

While just under half of all virtual schools in the nation are charter schools, together they accounted for roughly 75 percent of virtual school enrollment in the 2017-18 school year.

Would-be ECOTs exist in many of the 27 states that have opened their doors to virtual charters, says Michael Barbour, Associate Professor of Instructional Design at Touro University in California.

“Especially in states that were early entrants into the virtual charter world, there was very little oversight or accountability built into them,” Barbour explains. “Programs were set up by individuals with a strong background in business. For-profit authorizers play a very direct role in the operations of the school. You have voluntary boards handpicked by the corporations whose sole responsibility is to sign a contract with that corporation to operate that school.”

Behind every opening of a full-time, for-profit, virtual charter school, says Barbour, is “an abdication of the public responsibility for education.”

Profits Over Students

The policies and practices of these schools should be subject to increased federal oversight, according to two U.S. senators. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Patty Murray of Washington recently called on the General Accounting office (GAO) to scrutinize how the lack of accountability and transparency is affecting student outcomes.

“Most states distribute funding to virtual charter schools as they would to brick-and-mortar schools,” Brown and Murray wrote in their letter to the GAO. “And yet, there is limited information on how operators allocate those public dollars to educate students and manage company operations. This is especially problematic as the majority of virtual charter schools are either explicitly operated by or connected to for-profit companies that have perverse incentives to minimize the cost of instruction and student supports in order to boost their bottom line.”

Meg Benner and Neil Campbell analyzed outcomes at the largest, for-profit virtual charter schools in five states. Many of these schools are run by K12 Inc., the largest such operator in the nation, serving an estimated 30 percent of students enrolled in these schools.

Source: “Profit Before Kids,” Center for American Progress, 2018

“[Accountability] policies have not kept pace with the growth of virtual education, enabling many for-profit operators to take advantage of fully virtual instruction to boost their bottom line and drive dollars away from instruction at the expense of student outcomes,” said Benner, senior consultant for K-12 Education Policy at CAP.

The extent of the failure detailed in the report is staggering:

For-profit virtual charter schools graduate about half of their students, which groups them among the lowest-performing schools in their state. Furthermore, for-profit cyber charters have much lower graduation rates than nearby urban school districts that generally serve more low-income students.

The schools generally perform below the state average for third-grade English language arts and eighth-grade math proficiency.

Most of the large virtual charter schools in CAP’s analysis also fell far below states’ expectations for students’ academic growth.

Benner and Campbell also take a hard look at the financial records of K12 Inc., which reveal a prioritizing of growth at the expense of results: “Despite concerning outcomes across many of K12 Inc.’s virtual charter schools, the company’s 2018 annual report demonstrates that it continues to divert resources to grow enrollment, thereby limiting funds to improve academic programs.”

Then there are the hefty compensation packages doled out to K12 Inc. executives. Benner and Campbell say the compensation of K12 Inc.’s top five executives is “comparable to the national average cost of educating almost 1,300 public school students.”

Political Pressure

In addition to recommending rigorous new accountability mechanisms for all virtual charter schools, the authors endorse banning for-profit companies from opening and operating these schools. Lawmakers would have to be careful, however, to tailor the language very specifically to cover any arrangements a for-profit entity may use to to avoid compliance.

“The majority of virtual charter schools are either explicitly operated by or connected to for-profit companies that have perverse incentives to minimize the cost of instruction and student supports in order to boost their bottom line.” – U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (OH) and Patty Murray (WA) in a letter to the General Accounting Office

“These guys don’t have much experience in education,” says Michael Barbour. “But they do know business and they know how to find loopholes to get around regulations.”

In September, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill, supported by the California Teachers Association, prohibiting for-profit companies from owning and managing charter schools, a major step for a state that has 10 percent of its 6.2 million K-12 students in charter schools. Strong political opposition, however, appears to have stemmed the expansion.

In Indiana, educators have been lobbying the legislature to curb the growth of the states’ poorly performing virtual charter schools, where more than 12,000 students are enrolled. Their record, says the Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA), is “wholly unimpressive for kids and taxpayers.” ISTA advocates a moritarium on new virtual schools and a change in the funding formula so that performance, not enrollment, determines how much they receive from the state.

As the fallout of the ECOT debacle continues, Ohio lawmakers have passed a series of measures in 2018 designed to strengthen accountability and require fraudulent charter school funds to be returned to school districts. Educators and many lawmakers say more needs to be done, because another ECOT could very easily happen. After all, 4,000 of ECOT students this spring transferred to another virtual charter school, Ohio Virtual Academy – owned and operated by K12. Inc.

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/10/26/scrutiny-over-virtual-charter-schools/feed/044210School Funding Goes Directly Before the Votershttp://neatoday.org/2018/10/09/education-funding-on-ballot-measures/
http://neatoday.org/2018/10/09/education-funding-on-ballot-measures/#respondTue, 09 Oct 2018 12:59:47 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=43962As voters head to the polls on Nov. 6, educators in Florida are going to be particularly eager to bring the Rick Scott era to a close. As governor, Scott kept the state’s education funding to crippling lows and never came across a school privatization scheme – or a tax break for the state’s wealthiest citizens – he didn’t wholeheartedly champion.

The Florida Education Association is supporting Andrew Gillum, who has called for increased funding for public schools and a brake on the expansion of unaccountable charter schools. Electing Gillum – not to mention like-minded state legislators – is critical. But in 2018 that victory by itself may not be enough. Further down on the November ballot voters will also find a proposed state amendment that could potentially straightjacket any new plans to reinvest in public education.

It’s called Amendment 5. If approved, it will require any new revenues for any purpose be approved by at least a 2/3 majority of legislators in each house. (Currently, the legislature needs a simple majority to pass any new taxes or fees or to increase existing ones). This supermajority threshold essentially empowers a small number of legislators to block budget proposals that invest in key public services, locking into place Rick Scott’s legacy of austerity for public schools and tax breaks for corporations for decades to come. (Needless to say, Amendment 5 does not extend to efforts to further cut taxes for the wealthy.)

Amendment 5 would likely force even deeper education cuts in a state that already already ranks low on many education funding and performance measures. According to an analysis by the Florida Policy Institute (FPI), Florida ranks 47th in attracting and retaining effective teachers, 44th in high school graduation rates, and 42nd in spending per K-12 student.

The FPI report warns those rankings could dip even further in an economic downturn:

“The rising cost of competing priorities could shift support away from education. If a two-thirds majority cannot be reached, then local lawmakers would be forced to choose between raising local taxes or reducing support for schools and other local priorities.”

As in Florida, the underfunding of public schools has taken center stage across the nation this campaign season. Educators are out in force, leading a #RedforEd movement to sweep pro-education candidates into office (there are 554 educators on the ballot this fall) and push an aggressive legislative agenda to reinvest in their students.

Elections aren’t just about candidates. In many states, voters in 2018 may be determining the future of public school funding. State ballot measures – the good, the bad and the ugly – have risen the stakes.

‘Schools Cemented Into a Permanent Recession’

Florida isn’t the only state where powerful interests are using ballot measures to choke off revenue streams for public services and secure tax breaks for the wealthy. A similar scheme is underway in North Carolina, another state another still reeling from decade of deep cuts to education.

Senate Bill 75 would cap the state income tax rate at 7% (a decrease from the current constitutionally-mandated 10%). Supporters like to call the proposal merely a way to protect taxpayers. What it is, says Mark Jewell, president of the North Carolina Association of Educators, is “a permanent tax cut for corporations and millionaires that will leave our schools starving.”

According to estimates, an income tax cap would drain $3.5 million annually from the state’s coffers, damaging any effort to make significant investments in public schools and students. Jewell says it would also force lawmakers to increase other taxes, such as property and sales taxes, which disproportionately burden working families.

A flexible income tax helped keep the state afloat in the previous two recessions. According to the North Carolina Justice Center, “state policymakers enacted temporary top brackets on high-income taxpayers to raise revenue that minimized cuts to public schools, public health, and other investments that were important to the long-term well-being and economic success of the state.”

If a cap is implemented, the state’s public education system will face dire consequences. Progress NC Action called SB75 the “sound of North Carolina’s public schools cemented into a permanent recession.”

Public education activists in North Carolina and Florida believe the experience of other states serve as cautionary tales.

In November, voters in North Carolina will decide whether to cap the state’s personal and corporate income tax rates at 7 percent. Mark Jewell of the North Carolina Association of Educators calls the proposal “a permanent tax cut for corporations and millionaires that will leave our schools starving.” (Photo: NCAE)

Since 1992, Colorado’s schools have been under the thumb of the so-called “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” (TABOR), a voter-approved referendum that drastically limited the amount of revenue governments could collect and spend. Although lawmakers have loosened its restrictions, Colorado spends $2,000 less per student on average, compared with other states. Teacher pay is well below the national average, and schools are constantly struggling to fill their classrooms with qualified educators.

Colorado, meanwhile, has one of the fastest growing economies in the nation.

In June, activists delivered 175,000 signatures (significantly more than the required 100,000) to place Amendment 73 on the 2018 ballot. The amendment would raise $1.6 billion a year in additional revenue for Colorado’s public schools, bringing the state closer to the national average in school funding.

Getting a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot is no easy task in Colorado. Activists had to collect signatures from at least 2 percent of voters in all 35 Colorado Senate districts, a new rule implemented in 2016 to make it more difficult to change the state’s constitution.

In such a healthy economy, the state has run out of excuses not to bolster school funding. “It is up to all of us to get Amendment 73 passed by voters to ensure students and educators across Colorado have access to a high-quality public education no matter where they live,” said Amie Baca-Oehlert, president of the Colorado Education Association.

Sharing the Growing Economy With Students

Educators in Hawaii and Utah are also determined to open new revenue streams for their students.

Utah educators are campaigning for Question 1, which asks voters to approve a small increase in the gas tax (costing the average driver only $4 a month), with 70 percent invested in public education and 30 percent to improve local roads.

If Question 1 is approved, it could generate more than $100 million in new funding for Utah schools, money that goes directly to classrooms and teacher salaries. “Question 1 is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” says Heidi Matthews, president of the Utah Education Association, which worked with community members across the state and the legislature to get the measure on this year’s ballot.

Writing in the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah teachers Aaryn Birchell, Valerie Gates, Allison Riddle, and Gay Beck called attention to how the funding generated by Question 1 will empowers those who know their students best:

“Individual schools would create a plan detailing how their allocation will be invested to meet the needs of their students, while the school board verifies the funds are used only for academic purposes. This innovative approach allows each community to participate in how the funding is spent, measure what results are achieved, and ensure that funding isn’t used toward district administration or school construction.”

No state in the nation allocates a smaller percentage of both state and local revenue toward education than Hawaii.

“If the 1 percent want to call Hawaii home then they should be giving back — and that starts with paying their fair share to ensure our children get the quality education they deserve,” said Corey Rosenlee, HSTA president.

“Every year we say education is a priority,” he added. “But we don’t do enough to improve chronic underfunding of public education while Hawaii’s children are falling behind and schools struggle to prepare students for 21st-century jobs.”

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/10/09/education-funding-on-ballot-measures/feed/043962Study Upends Conventional Wisdom About Private School Advantageshttp://neatoday.org/2018/09/24/are-private-school-better-than-public-schools/
http://neatoday.org/2018/09/24/are-private-school-better-than-public-schools/#respondTue, 25 Sep 2018 00:14:19 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=43927Steadfast public opposition, educator advocacy, and a meager (at best) track record has slowed down the push to expand school vouchers nationwide. Still, voucher advocates soldier on, buoyed by Betsy DeVos’ determination and a rebranding effort (“education savings accounts,” “tuition tax credits”) designed to make siphoning public money for private school tuition more politically appealing. Then there’s the apparent public consensus that private schools are superior to public schools. That being the case, so the argument goes, how can we deny low-income families the opportunity to send their children to these institutions?

Putting aside the fact that voucher programs are often expanded to include affluent families, the assumption that private schools are the better option for students from disadvantaged communities is misleading and “potentially harmful,” says Robert Pianta, Dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia.

In “Does Attendance in Private Schools Predict Student Outcomes at Age 15? Evidence From a Longitudinal Study,” Pianta and Ansari find that children with a history of enrollment in private schools did perform better on nearly all outcomes assessed in adolescence. Once you controlled for socioeconomic characteristics, however, all of the advantages of private school education were essentially eliminated.

“The study collected a wealth of information on families and students’ performance even before they started school, so it also allowed us to see if private school enrollment added any value over and above those factors,” Pianta explains.

Pianta and Ansari analyzed data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD), which beginning in 1991 tracked 1,364 U.S. children from nine different states from birth to age 15. The researchers evaluated ninth-grade outcomes, academic achievement, education aspirations, social behavior, family characteristics (income and parent education), child characteristics and neighborhood characteristics – all used to determine to what extent enrollment in private school was related to students’ academic, social and psychological outcomes at age 15.

The results show that socioeconomic advantages, not the school itself, is more predictive of student success.

Despite the arguments in favor of the use of vouchers or other mechanisms to support enrollment in private schools, this study finds no evidence that private schools, exclusive of family background or income, are more effective for promoting student success.” – Robert Pianta, Dean of the Curry School of Education, University of Virginia

Pianta is quick to point out that this study is not an evaluation of voucher programs. The findings are obviously relevant to the debate since private schools are viewed as the superior choice by voucher proponents. The UVA study does point out, however, that research into existing voucher programs provides little tangible evidence that private school education is producing better academic outcomes.

“Independent investigations of programs in Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, and New York City indicate that enrollment in private schools had mixed effects on achievement for low-income students compared with program-eligible peers not attending private schools,” Pianta and Ansari write.

Lubienski told NEA Today in 2013 that parents need to question these faulty assumptions about private schools if they are looking at that particular option for their children.

“Instead of just looking at whether a school is private or public, [parents] may want to look at the type of preparation and pedagogy the teachers have had or the type of curriculum a school offers. Are the teachers certified or not? These things should matter quite a bit,” Lubienski said.

Parents may not ask these important questions because most people misunderstand the heterogeneity of private schools, says Pianta.

“We have a stereotypic view of private schools – the kinds of prep schools we see in movies – terrific teachers, striving kids, a real focus on achievement and excellence,” Pianta explains. “But there is a very wide range of private schools – some are very small one-room schoolhouses that run under religious auspices or a very specific model of schooling, while others are like school districts themselves – such as the Catholic schools run by the Archdiocese of New York.

“The issue here is that private schools are as variable as public schools, perhaps more so.”

The school privatization agenda subsists largely on false narratives (along with an enormous amount of corporate cash) that tend to dissolve under scrutiny. Private school superiority over public schools appears to be no exception, which is good news for students. The further away the national conversation turns away from the fixation on vouchers and other privatization schemes, the better. Perhaps soon, Pianta and Ansari write, lawmakers can focus on “better understanding the mechanisms in schools and families that support student success, and strengthen those resources accordingly.”

]]>http://neatoday.org/2018/09/24/are-private-school-better-than-public-schools/feed/043927#OutOfMyPocket: Educators Speak Out on Buying Their Own School Supplieshttp://neatoday.org/2018/09/14/teachers-paying-for-school-supplies/
http://neatoday.org/2018/09/14/teachers-paying-for-school-supplies/#respondFri, 14 Sep 2018 17:38:41 +0000http://neatoday.org/?p=43859Their own salaries continue to stagnate, and many are looking to a second job to help make ends meet. Still, practically all public school educators are reaching into their own pocket to pay for school supplies without reimbursement. According to a recent survey by the National Center for Education Statistics, 94 percent of teachers spend their own money to stock their classrooms with the necessary supplies and resources. On average, a teacher will shell out about $479, although 7 percent spent more than $1,000, according to the survey.

Serra Laurenco, California
Every year I start “back to school shopping” as soon as school gets out. I have to buy pencils (hundreds), erasers, white board markers, packs of crayons, scissors, glue sticks, pencil boxes for all my kids, cases of copy paper, index cards, colored pencils, markers, and more!! I spend an average of $3,000 every year. I purchase books for my class and individual students who don’t have any at home, sometimes backpacks and jackets for kids who need them as well. Being a teacher isn’t easy; we spend so much time on our profession and money from our pockets.

Juli Taylor, Missouri
I’m a special education teacher, and many of my students have physical disabilities, so they need specific adaptive equipment in order to meaningfully access their education. These include sensory bins, vibrating teethers, fidget toys, and many other things. Each year, we are given a budget of $150 to place a requisition order. This year, I spent $109 out of $150 on a special order, and was told two weeks into the school year that the items I wanted were sold out. I have not heard back yet whether or not I can place a new requisition order for the year.

In addition to special adaptive items, I buy snacks for my students out of pocket. We also cook each Friday to practice important functional measuring skills. I think this activity is soimportant, and I am given a budget of $100 to spend on the groceries required to cook the food. We spend that $100 within the first eight weeks of school.

I do not have access to a colored printer in my building, although many of my students’ level of literacy representation is colored line drawings. I can use the copy center if I can wait two weeks for the materials, but I frequently need visual supports the next day to help students who struggle with emotional regulation to be successful in their school day. So I bought my own printer, I buy my own colored ink, and I bought my own laminator. I spend hours at home printing and laminating my own materials, and hundreds of dollars on colored ink and laminating film.

My first year I spent well over $1,500 to decorate, stock my classroom library, and provide snacks for students who came without. I’m in year 9 now and I can’t even guess what my personal total is up to #outofmypocket#redforedpic.twitter.com/tv10S0505i

Regino Ramos, Texas
As a band director at a Title I district, I have many students that come from very disadvantaged families. In some cases, both parents work, and the father has an extra job. They make minimum wage, and with all that have a hard time making ends meet. In order for the student to march in the band, they must purchase marching shoes ($50), supplies for their instrument, ($25), band shirts and a band hat, ($35). Regularly I put in $1500 to cover the expense of these students. Then there are times when I need to purchase supplies, reeds, etc.

Our district is very supportive of the program, but these expenses are not covered by Title 1 funds and we are not always able to fundraise.

I love my kids, I love my community, but I wish that our state would give us higher wages, or a greater tax deduction, or maybe even a tax credit!

Jamie McAlpine, Maine
Out district does reimburse teachers up to $250 they may spend each school year, but as a paraeducator, I do not receive that benefit. I teach social skills and while I was extremely grateful that teachers in my building donated games and materials to me for use with my kiddos, I still spent around $200 on books, games, and teaching materials (amen for Teachers Pay Teachers!) to use with my kids. This year the district helped fund more of the curriculum I will be using, but that was a big hit last year working on a para salary. I’m thankful for supportive colleagues and online resources to help me get through!

Mandy De Groote used her own money to create a flexible, more engaging learning evironment for her students.

Mandy De Groote, California
This year, we received 12 pencils, 3 boxes of crayons, 2 Post-it notes, and a handful of composition books. Everything else in my classroom was funded by me. As teaching becomes more challenging, from a student and an administrative expectation standpoint, it is important to create a learning environment that inspires the students and yourself. This year I financed all the flexible seating, all the school supplies, additional chromebooks, and curriculum to meet state standards (we have none for NGSS) as well as curriculum that is innovative and engages students.

Alicia Fisher, Maryland
Even at the Dollar Store and Target, things add up. I have spent approximately $200 this summer for the 2018-19 year and my aunt spent approximately $50. Each year she makes a donation to my class. We bought crayons, pencils, bulletin board paper and border, a broom, wipes, snacks, folders, Sticky Tack and bins to name a few. Still need a couple pillows and a rug. That’ll come later.

Elizabeth Brown, Utah
I’m an art teacher at four schools with almost 3,000 students. My budget is around $350. My budget covers a piece of construction paper per student. Without searching out grants, leg work for Donors Choose, and my own pocket, all we would do is draw with pencils and old broken crayons.

Larry Grimaldi, Illinois
I spent quite a bit last year knowing I might get a small portion of that back on my tax return. Not anymore. Teaching science is tough without supplies, and even in an affluent community such as the one I teach in, our science budget is lacking due to the other initiatives the district prioritizes. If I’m going to bring an engaging unit to life, I need supplies and consumables to do just that.

Alicia Fisher (left) and her aunt after a visit to the dollar store to buy classroom supplies.

I hope I can find some residual income to do similar things in my classroom this year that I was able to do last year.

Debra Deskin, Oklahoma
As a Gifted and Talented teacher for two school sites, I get little to no extra funding, even though students who are identified as Gifted get money brought into the district. STEM-related activities are wonderful, but these activities can become expensive for the teacher. I have literally had to choose whether to purchase items for my classroom and students or pay bills. Honestly, the bills get put on the backburner more often than not. I am embarrassed to not live in a home that I would like teacher friends to visit. I just can’t afford this job, yet I have stuck with it for 15 years.

I also bought my own audio system because my music classroom does not have a sound system. I spend money on educational posters and visual tools to help students remember details and stay engaged. I teach in three different classrooms, so I purchase materials for all three spaces. Our school has given us some help with supplies, but teachers can only request supplies up to $75 for the whole year.

Our school has been given 1:1 devices, but I had to buy my own case and accessories. I also bought a lot of the software used to run my department: website hosting, Adobe subscription, cloud storage, study tools, and other online resources that the school won’t pay for. I’ve even bought styluses for my class because kids don’t have them and the school can’t afford to get one for every child.

Let’s also remember that teachers are paying for more than classroom supplies. We take some field trips, so I often pay partial costs for students who cannot afford to go otherwise. I have also purchased clothes, shoes, and school tech accessories for students in need. I don’t charge for voice lessons even though I should, but my kids can’t afford to pay. I do these things out of love for my kids and I don’t ask for a refund from anyone. But I think the community ought to know the real amount of money teachers are putting into their classroom, school, and kids’ overall education.